Dataset Information

Socioeconomic Deprivation: An Important, Largely Unrecognized Risk Factor in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Whether deprivation status should be incorporated in more cardiovascular risk estimation scores remains unclear. This study evaluates how socioeconomic deprivation status affects the performance of 3 primary prevention cardiovascular risk scores.

Methods

The Generation Scotland Scottish Family Health Study was used to evaluate the performance of 3 cardiovascular risk scores with (ASSIGN [Assessing cardiovascular risk using SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) guidelines to ASSIGN preventive treatment]) and without (SCORE2 [Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 algorithm], Pooled Cohort Equations) socioeconomic deprivation as a covariate in the risk prediction model. Deprivation was defined by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation score. The predicted 10-year risk was evaluated against the observed event rate for the cardiovascular outcome of each risk score. The comparison was made across 3 groups defined by the deprivation index score consisting of group 1 defined as most deprived, group 3 defined as least deprived, and group 2, which consisted of individuals in the middle deprivation categories.

Results

The study population consisted of 15 506 individuals (60.0% female, median age of 51). Across the population, 1808 (12%) individuals were assigned to group 1 (most deprived), 8119 (52%) to group 2, and 4708 (30%) to group 3 (least deprived), and 871 (6%) individuals had a missing deprivation score. Risk scores based on models that did not include deprivation status significantly under predicted risk in the most deprived (6.43% observed versus 4.63% predicted for SCORE2 [P=0.001] and 6.69% observed versus 4.66% predicted for Pooled Cohort Equations [P<0.001]). Both risk scores also significantly overpredicted the risk in the least deprived group (3.97% observed versus 4.72% predicted for SCORE2 [P=0.007] and 4.22% observed versus 4.85% predicted for Pooled Cohort Equations [P=0.028]). In contrast, no significant difference was demonstrated in the observed versus predicted risk when using the ASSIGN risk score, which included socioeconomic deprivation status in the risk model.

Conclusions

Socioeconomic status is a largely unrecognized risk factor in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Risk scores that exclude socioeconomic deprivation as a covariate under- and overestimate the risk in the most and least deprived individuals, respectively. This study highlights the importance of incorporating socioeconomic deprivation status in risk estimation systems to ultimately reduce inequalities in health care provision for cardiovascular disease.

SUBMITTER: Kimenai DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9287096 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent experimental evidence suggests that socioeconomic characteristics of neighbourhoods influence cardiovascular health, but observational studies which examine deprivation across a wide range of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are lacking.MethodsRecord-linkage cohort study of 1.93 million people to examine the association between small-area socioeconomic deprivation and 12 CVDs. Health records covered primary care, hospital admissions, a myocardial infarction registry and cause-specific mortality in England (CALIBER). Patients were aged ?30 years and were initially free of CVD. Cox proportional hazard models stratified by general practice were used.FindingsDuring a median follow-up of 5.5 years 114,859 people had one of 12 initial CVD presentations. In women the hazards of all CVDs except abdominal aortic aneurysm increased linearly with higher small-area socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted HR for most vs. least deprived ranged from 1.05, 95%CI 0.83-1.32 for abdominal aortic aneurysm to 1.55, 95%CI 1.42-1.70 for heart failure; I2?=?81.9%, ?2?=?0.01). In men heterogeneity was higher (HR ranged from 0.89, 95%CI 0.75-1.06 for cardiac arrest to 1.85, 95%CI 1.67-2.04 for peripheral arterial disease; I2?=?96.0%, ?2?=?0.06) and no association was observed with stable angina, sudden cardiac death, subarachnoid haemorrhage, transient ischaemic attack and abdominal aortic aneurysm. Lifetime risk difference between least and most deprived quintiles was most marked for peripheral arterial disease in women (4.3% least deprived, 5.8% most deprived) and men (4.6% least deprived, 7.8% in most deprived); but it was small or negligible for sudden cardiac death, transient ischaemic attack, abdominal aortic aneurysm and ischaemic and intracerebral haemorrhage, in both women and men.ConclusionsAssociations of small-area socioeconomic deprivation with 12 types of CVDs were heterogeneous, and in men absent for several diseases. Findings suggest that policies to reduce deprivation may impact more strongly on heart failure and peripheral arterial disease, and might be more effective in women.

Project description:BackgroundTo examine the association between the degree of risk factor control and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in type 2 diabetes and to assess if the presence of cardio-renal disease modifies these relationships.MethodsA retrospective cohort study using data from English practices from CPRD GOLD (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and the SCI-Diabetes dataset (Scottish Care Information-Diabetes), with linkage to hospital and mortality data. We identified 101 749 with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in CPRD matched with 378 938 controls without diabetes and 330 892 with type 2 diabetes in SCI-Diabetes between 2006 and 2015. The main exposure was number of optimized risk factors: nonsmoker, total cholesterol ≤4 mmol/L, triglycerides ≤1.7 mmol/L, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤53 mmol/mol (≤7.0%), systolic blood pressure <140mm Hg, or <130 mm Hg if high risk. Cox models were used to assess cardiovascular risk associated with levels of risk factor control.ResultsIn CPRD, the mean baseline age in T2D was 63 years and 28% had cardio-renal disease (SCI-Diabetes: 62 years; 35% cardio-renal disease). Over 3 years follow-up (SCI-Diabetes: 6 years), CVD events occurred among 27 900 (27%) CPRD-T2D, 101 362 (31%) SCI-Diabetes-T2D, and 75 520 (19%) CPRD-controls. In CPRD, compared with controls, T2D participants with optimal risk factor control (all risk factors controlled) had a higher risk of CVD events (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.29). In T2D participants from CPRD and SCI-Diabetes, pooled hazard ratios for CVD associated with 5 risk factors being elevated versus optimal risk factor control were 1.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.17) in people with cardio-renal disease but 1.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.82-2.12) in people without cardio-renal disease. People without cardio-renal disease were younger and more likely to have likely to have suboptimal risk factor control but had fewer prescriptions for risk factor modifying medications than those with cardio-renal disease.ConclusionsOptimally managed people with T2D have a 21% higher CVD risk when compared with controls. People with T2D without cardio-renal disease would be predicted to benefit greatly from CVD risk factor intervention.

Project description:BackgroundMost incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurs after patients reach the age of 65. The additive benefits of aggressive risk factor management with advancing age are not well established.ObjectiveTo evaluate the relationship between control of four modifiable risk factors (smoking, non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol, blood pressure, and aspirin use) and risk of CVD in a primary prevention population of older men.Materials and methodsU.S. male physicians from the Physicians' Health Study (n = 4182; an epidemiologic follow-up of a randomized trial of aspirin and beta-carotene) who in 1997 were ? 65 years, free of CVD and diabetes, and had a blood sample on file were studied. Cox proportional hazard models were adjusted for age and competing causes of death. The first of any CVD event, defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, angina, coronary revascularization, nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attack, carotid artery surgery, and other peripheral vascular disease surgery, was measured.ResultsMean follow-up was 9.3 years, mean age was 73 years, and 96% were nonsmokers. Compared with when 4 of 4 risk factors were controlled (6.0% of participants), control of 0 of 4 risk factors almost quadrupled the risk of CVD (0.4% of participants; event rate 41.2%; hazard ratio [HR] 3.83, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.72-8.55); control of 1 of 4 risk factors more than doubled the risk (14.2% of participants; HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.80-3.57); control of 2 of 4 risk factors almost doubled the risk (43.8% of participants; HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.41-2.69), and those with control of 3 of 4 risk factors also were at increased risk (35.6% of participants; HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.30-2.50). Control of each additional risk factor was associated with greater cardiovascular protection (P for trend P = .002). Depending on the number of risk factors controlled, the number-needed to control to prevent one CVD event ranged from 5 to 22.ConclusionControl of 4 treatable risk factors (nonsmoking, control of non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol and blood pressure, and aspirin use) was associated with substantial protection against incident cardiovascular events in older men even after adjustment for competing causes of mortality.

Project description:BackgroundThe recent guidelines for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular events are an important advancement. For primary prevention, statins are recommended if the ten-year risk is ? 5% (consideration for therapy) or ? 7.5% (definitive treatment unless contraindication after discussion). We rationalized that a significant cohort with ten-year risk below the treatment thresholds would predictably surpass them within the recommended 4-6 year window for reassessing the ten-year risk. As atherosclerosis is a progressive disease, these individuals may therefore benefit with more aggressive therapies even at baseline.Methods and findingsWe used publicly available NHANES dataset for ten-year risk calculation. There were 1805 participants. To evaluate the ten-year risk change at five years, we considered two scenarios: no change in the baseline parameters except increased age by five (No Change) and alternatively 10% improvement in systolic BP, total and HDL-c, no smoking with five-year increase in age (Reduced Risk Profile). Amongst non-diabetics with <5% risk at baseline, 35% reached or exceeded 5% risk in five years (5% reached or exceed the 7.5% risk) with No Change and 9% reached or exceeded 5% risk in five years (none reached 7.5% risk) with Reduced Risk Profile; furthermore, 94% of the non-diabetic cohort with baseline risk between 3.5%-5% would exceed the 5% and/or 7.5% boundary limit with No Change. Amongst non-diabetics with 5-7.5% baseline risks, 87% reached or exceeded 7.5% with No Change while 30% reached or exceeded 7.5% risk with Reduced Risk Profile.ConclusionsA significant population cohort at levels below the treatment thresholds will predictably exceed these limits with time with or without improvement in modifiable risk factors and may benefit with more aggressive therapy at baseline. We provide an improved risk calculator that allows for integrating expected risk modification into discussion with an individual. This needs to be prospectively tested in clinical trials.